Should Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland stop speaking for all atheists?

oldrnwisr

smacl wrote: »

While I agree with the rest of your post, I'm not so sure about the above. From the AI constitution;

I would certainly consider the aims idealogical, and the requirement of a member to agree with those aims clearly indicates a level of shared ideology.

Thank you for the info smacl. Despite being a member of AI for seven years, I have to admit that I hadn't actually read the constitution. I have now though.
I concede that One Eyed Jack has a valid point in respect of an analogy between AI and the RCC on this basis, however I would maintain that this analogy doesn't stretch to a comparison between atheism and religion. Just for clarity.

antitheist1

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It can be just that, and it can be more. There is no agreed definition of atheism, either among self-described theists or self-described atheists, or in dictionaries. The idea that the word atheism has only one meaning is itself one of many beliefs about the meaning of the word atheism.

Okay so if it has one than one meaning explain in interviews that you represent a particular meaning of atheism that is not shared by all atheists. When it comes to how religions misrepresent and seek to represent those who you believe they should not you are very qucik to point this out, yet you boldly seem to speak for all atheists or at least do not clarify that in fact you cannot speak for all atheists.

However I not from your constitution

[/QUOTE]Atheist Ireland is a member of Atheist Alliance International, an umbrella organisation of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview.[/QUOTE]

No, I didn’t. Please listen to it again.


I wouldn’t say that as an atheist one has to be wholly moral. I would say that as a human being, living in society, one should try to act ethically. Atheist Ireland promotes ethical secularism as well as atheism and reason.


I cannot stop doing something that I am not doing. It would be an absurd claim for me or anybody else to make. Depending on the circumstances, I speak either for myself or for the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

When speaking on behalf of Atheist Ireland, I give people credit for understanding that it is obvious that I do not speak for all atheists in Ireland without me having to specifically say that, just as spokespersons for the National Women’s Council of Ireland or the Children’s Rights Alliance or [insert advocacy group of choice] do not make such disclaimers whenever they are speaking.


That is what atheism means to you, but it is not what it means to everybody. Here’s what atheism means to me, over and above not believing in gods.

If you don’t believe that gods exist, it necessarily follows that you believe that we don’t get our understandings of reality or morality from revelations from gods. That’s not just a correlation. It necessarily follows from atheism. And those are two significant beliefs to hold in a world where most people believe the opposite.

You cannot identify a person’s specific moral code simply by knowing that they are an atheist, but equally you cannot say that you cannot tell anything about a person’s morality simply by knowing that they are an atheist. Just as theism is as much an assertion about the nature of morality as it is about the nature of reality, so too is atheism as much an assertion about the nature of morality as it is about the nature of reality.

Now, I am not saying that mine is the only valid meaning of atheism, but you seem to be saying that yours is. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Whatever our different beliefs about what the word means, I am happy to discuss the issue and tease out nuances and change my beliefs based on new evidence.

And in parallel to such interesting philosophical discussions, I will continue to actively campaign for an ethical secular Ireland, along with my inspirationally hardworking friends and colleagues in Atheist Ireland, and we will be doing so in the way all advocacy groups do, including assuming that listeners understand the basics of how advocacy groups work and who they speak for.[/QUOTE]

antitheist1

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It can be just that, and it can be more. There is no agreed definition of atheism, either among self-described theists or self-described atheists, or in dictionaries. The idea that the word atheism has only one meaning is itself one of many beliefs about the meaning of the word atheism.

Okay so if it has one than one meaning explain in interviews that you represent a particular meaning of atheism that is not shared by all atheists. When it comes to how religions misrepresent and seek to represent those who you believe they should not you are very qucik to point this out, yet you boldly seem to speak for all atheists or at least do not clarify that in fact you cannot speak for all atheists.

However I not from your constitution

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is a member of Atheist Alliance International, an umbrella organisation of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview.

"And the atheist world view"?????? Even by your your own definition of atheism as being difficult to define and having many meanings, this seems a little presumptuous.

The atheist world view. What exactly is the atheist world view??? Would it not be more honest to say "promote a world view that our members who happen to be atheists share"

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, I didn’t. Please listen to it again.

No Micheal I suggest you listen to it again, you ascribed certain moral attributes to atheists that I believe you had no right to do as all atheists can not share such moral attributes or principals.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I wouldn’t say that as an atheist one has to be wholly moral. I would say that as a human being, living in society, one should try to act ethically. Atheist Ireland promotes ethical secularism as well as atheism and reason.

I never said you said that.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I cannot stop doing something that I am not doing. It would be an absurd claim for me or anybody else to make. Depending on the circumstances, I speak either for myself or for the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Okay so just make that clear when you are speaking in the media.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

When speaking on behalf of Atheist Ireland, I give people credit for understanding that it is obvious that I do not speak for all atheists in Ireland without me having to specifically say that, just as spokespersons for the National Women’s Council of Ireland or the Children’s Rights Alliance or [insert advocacy group of choice] do not make such disclaimers whenever they are speaking.

Again Michael you are very particular about lots of examples about how religions claim to represent those who should really not, or how non practicing catholics put down christian on the census but you fail to make the point that really you only actually have a mandate to speak about atheism from the perspective of your membership. It may suit you to not point this out but I believe you have a duty to do so.

There is very little comparison between your group and other advocacy groups such as children rights alliance. This is not the time to point out these differences, maybe deserving of another thread.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you don’t believe that gods exist, it necessarily follows that you believe that we don’t get our understandings of reality or morality from revelations from gods. That’s not just a correlation. It necessarily follows from atheism. And those are two significant beliefs to hold in a world where most people believe the opposite.

Two points here- one why the obsession about where people derive their morality from, as long as they are being moral does it really matter?

Secondly why do you assume that as an atheist one has to be moral. Get morality from anywhere? Why not get immorality, why not choose immorality, You seem to have this simplistic view that morality is something absolute, fundamental natural, that sounds nearly religious to me Michael. One could argue that morality is nothing more than a cultural construct which is relative and one persons immorality is another morality.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

so too is atheism as much an assertion about the nature of morality as it is about the nature of reality.

Atheism is not an assertion about the natural of morality. It is nothing of the sort. I can reject the theistic claim as to the origins of morality and the underlying reasons to be moral by rejecting the notion of morality in the first place. And if morality is relative culturally, socially, etc there may not even be true morality just social constructs, in fact only religion can/does claim morality as intrinsic to humanity. As an atheist I can not be so bold or naive as to say that it is.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Now, I am not saying that mine is the only valid meaning of atheism,

But you never point out this point in interviews.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

but you seem to be saying that yours is. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Whatever our different beliefs about what the word means, I am happy to discuss the issue and tease out nuances and change my beliefs based on new evidence.

If you believe there is many interpretations of what atheism is please point this out in interviews and only claim to speak for those who share your interpretation.

antitheist1

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It can be just that, and it can be more. There is no agreed definition of atheism, either among self-described theists or self-described atheists, or in dictionaries. The idea that the word atheism has only one meaning is itself one of many beliefs about the meaning of the word atheism.

Okay so if it has more than one meaning explain in interviews that you represent a particular meaning of atheism that is not shared by all atheists. When it comes to how religions misrepresent and seek to represent those who you believe they should not you are very qucik to point this out, yet you boldly seem to speak for all atheists or at least do not clarify that in fact you cannot speak for all atheists.

However I not from your constitution

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is a member of Atheist Alliance International, an umbrella organisation of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview.

"And the atheist world view"?????? Even by your your own definition of atheism as being difficult to define and having many meanings, this seems a little presumptuous.

The atheist world view. What exactly is the atheist world view??? Would it not be more honest to say "promote a world view that our members who happen to be atheists share"

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, I didn’t. Please listen to it again.

No Micheal I suggest you listen to it again, you ascribed certain moral attributes to atheists that I believe you had no right to do as all atheists can not share such moral attributes or principals.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I wouldn’t say that as an atheist one has to be wholly moral. I would say that as a human being, living in society, one should try to act ethically. Atheist Ireland promotes ethical secularism as well as atheism and reason.

I never said you said that.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I cannot stop doing something that I am not doing. It would be an absurd claim for me or anybody else to make. Depending on the circumstances, I speak either for myself or for the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Okay so just make that clear when you are speaking in the media.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

When speaking on behalf of Atheist Ireland, I give people credit for understanding that it is obvious that I do not speak for all atheists in Ireland without me having to specifically say that, just as spokespersons for the National Women’s Council of Ireland or the Children’s Rights Alliance or [insert advocacy group of choice] do not make such disclaimers whenever they are speaking.

Again Michael you are very particular about lots of examples about how religions claim to represent those who should really not, or how non practicing catholics put down christian on the census but you fail to make the point that really you only actually have a mandate to speak about atheism from the perspective of your membership. It may suit you to not point this out but I believe you have a duty to do so.

There is very little comparison between your group and other advocacy groups such as children rights alliance. This is not the time to point out these differences, maybe deserving of another thread.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you don’t believe that gods exist, it necessarily follows that you believe that we don’t get our understandings of reality or morality from revelations from gods. That’s not just a correlation. It necessarily follows from atheism. And those are two significant beliefs to hold in a world where most people believe the opposite.

Two points here- one why the obsession about where people derive their morality from, as long as they are being moral does it really matter?

Secondly why do you assume that as an atheist one has to be moral. Get morality from anywhere? Why not get immorality, why not choose immorality, You seem to have this simplistic view that morality is something absolute, fundamental natural, that sounds nearly religious to me Michael. One could argue that morality is nothing more than a cultural construct which is relative and one persons immorality is another morality.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

so too is atheism as much an assertion about the nature of morality as it is about the nature of reality.

Atheism is not an assertion about the natural of morality. It is nothing of the sort. I can reject the theistic claim as to the origins of morality and the underlying reasons to be moral by rejecting the notion of morality in the first place. And if morality is relative culturally, socially, etc there may not even be true morality just social constructs, in fact only religion can/does claim morality as intrinsic to humanity. As an atheist I can not be so bold or naive as to say that it is.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Now, I am not saying that mine is the only valid meaning of atheism,

But you never point out this point in interviews.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

but you seem to be saying that yours is. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Whatever our different beliefs about what the word means, I am happy to discuss the issue and tease out nuances and change my beliefs based on new evidence.

If you believe there is many interpretations of what atheism is please point this out in interviews and only claim to speak for those who share your interpretation.

antitheist1

Mod feel free to delete earlier non edited posts.

AshOB

antitheist1 wrote: »

There is very little comparison between your group and other advocacy groups such as children rights alliance. This is not the time to point out these differences, maybe deserving of another thread.

I think this is the perfect time to point out these differences. I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I would be very interested in why you feel there is little comparison between Atheist Ireland and other advocacy groups.

antitheist1

AshOB wrote: »

I think this is the perfect time to point out these differences. I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I would be very interested in why you feel there is little comparison between Atheist Ireland and other advocacy groups.

Am I am interested in why Michael Nugent does not make it clear that he is not speaking for all atheists as by his own admission there is many interpretations of atheism.

So why not stick to the point of the thread rather than seek to allign this group as similar to advocscy groups to give it unquestioned legitimacy.

Hotblack Desiato

This thread has a point??

antitheist1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This thread has a point??

Undermining the point of the thread??? I wonder why?

Michael Nugent

antitheist1 wrote: »

I am interested in why Michael Nugent does not make it clear that he is not speaking for all atheists as by his own admission there is many interpretations of atheism.

I have already made that clear.

I have also made it clear that I will not be prefacing every public statement I make with such a disclaimer, as that would be a disproportionate response to the small number of people in society who do not understand how the media or advocacy groups or personal interviews function, and would come across as eccentrically pedantic to the vast majority of people who do understand it.

antitheist1 wrote: »

So why not stick to the point of the thread rather than seek to allign this group as similar to advocscy groups to give it unquestioned legitimacy.

Discussions evolve. And in any case, your original post was about both me and Atheist Ireland. So, why do you* feel there is little comparison between Atheist Ireland and other advocacy groups?

* Despite your name being antitheist1, I will assume that you are speaking on your own behalf and not on behalf of all antitheists, despite you not explicitly clarifying that in any of your posts.

smacl

antitheist1 wrote: »

Okay so if it has more than one meaning explain in interviews that you represent a particular meaning of atheism that is not shared by all atheists...

While I agree with the bulk of your post, at worst you can say is that AI are misusing the term atheist. If like me, you take the simple dictionary definition of atheist, being an atheist doesn't say much that about you, and even though I self identify as an atheist it is a tiny part of my identity. As Oldrnwisr said earlier;

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel.

Thus AI can't mis-represent me when they talk about atheists, for the simple reason they don't represent me by talking about atheists to start with. If you feel misrepresented by someone misusing the term atheist, could be your misusing it yourself. I agree its an annoying niggle, but no more than that. To stretch and confuse the metaphor some, its a bit like saying that people who don't watch tv read more books. Logically dubious, and quite possibly untrue, but hardly a concern to people who don't watch tv.

antitheist1

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I have already made that clear.
I have also made it clear that I will not be prefacing every public statement I make with such a disclaimer, as that would be a disproportionate response to the small number of people in society who do not understand how the media or advocacy groups or personal interviews function, and would come across as eccentrically pedantic to the vast majority of people who do understand it.

I do not think that it would be disproportionate. You're organisations aims etc are as offensive to me than the catholic churches. I do not like being misrepresented. I do not like the fact that even though you acknowledge that there is many versions of atheism, by not making this clear you are shamelessly promoting you're organisations agenda, under the guise of atheism- when most of your organisations ideas could equally be espoused by any group of crack pots.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Discussions evolve. And in any case, your original post was about both me and Atheist Ireland. So, why do you* feel there is little comparison between Atheist Ireland and other advocacy groups?

I have no problem with you advocating but only for the aims of you're membership. I have a problem with you cornering the market in atheism to promote you're organisation and by packaging atheism to suit you're organisations agenda.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

* Despite your name being antitheist1, I will assume that you are speaking on your own behalf and not on behalf of all antitheists, despite you not explicitly clarifying that in any of your posts.

I do not claim to speak for anyone else though do I? Now if I was to boldly use the term Antitheist1 Ireland........................that might be a different thing all together.

Michael Nugent

antitheist1 wrote: »

I do not think that it would be disproportionate.

Well, let's agree to differ then.

I think we're going round in circles now.

antiskeptic

I do not think that it would be disproportionate. You're organisations aims etc are as offensive to me than the catholic churches. I do not like being misrepresented.

I'm a Christian and have far more choice when it comes to complaining about being misrepresented by Christian organizations who don't represent my particular 'brand' of Christianity.

The thought that I'd actually complain to a Christian organization telling the to cease and desist and add disclaimers strikes me as ludicrous. I'd warrant the general public as possessing enough savvy not to suppose that every single Christian (or atheist for that matter) in the world is represented by a single organization - no matter how wide-spanning a name they might chose to give themselves.

The question I'd ask a person self-describing as an atheist is a) whether they've read The God Delusion or not and b) if they have, what score out of 10 to they give it. After that, they go into one of two basic denominations: the more than 3 out of 10's (who are considered homogenous and dogmatic: the Catholic Church of the atheist world) and the less than 3 out of 10's/Haven't Read's (who can be further subdivided into other denominations: the Protestants of the atheist world)

Not a NSA agent

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question I'd ask a person self-describing as an atheist is a) whether they've read The God Delusion or not and b) if they have, what score out of 10 to they give it. After that, they go into one of two basic denominations: the more than 3 out of 10's (who are considered homogenous and dogmatic: the Catholic Church of the atheist world) and the less than 3 out of 10's/Haven't Read's (who can be further subdivided into other denominations: the Protestants of the atheist world)

Well that makes the are you an catholic atheist or a protestant atheist question a lot easier to answer next time Im in the north.

smacl

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Well that makes the are you an catholic atheist or a protestant atheist question a lot easier to answer next time Im in the north.

Haven't even read the God delusion. Maybe I'm not an atheist after all

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Haven't even read the God delusion. Maybe I'm not an atheist after all

That'd be aatheist

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That'd be aatheist

Phew, thought I'd been downgraded to a btheist